UK Judge solves single mum problem

[Rum]

But in current law, promising to withdraw and actually getting the girl preggers is lagally a rape, as it voids any consent the lady may have given.

I think the judge ruled the reverse of that.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-sex.html

The woman had consented to sex, but only on condition that her husband withdrew as she did not want to become pregnant.

However, at the last minute he told her he was not withdrawing and told her 'because you are my wife and I'll do it if I want'.

The woman who did not want another child become pregnant after the incident in February 2010.

In his landmark decision Lord Judge ruled that because the man, the woman's husband under Sharia law, did not stick to his part of the pre-sex deal he could, in the eyes of the law, be held guilty of rape.

Women who lie about being on birth control are guilty of rape when the roles are reversed I mean it seems logical

Which should make trying to collect child support a fun, fun game

Woman accuses man of fathering her child to collect child support.
Man claims women lied about being on the pill.
Woman arrested for rape

And for bonus lolz.........

Man gets child, and the generous welfare and council house that goes with it. Woman stuck paying child support after jail


Does any country have loonier judges

it would never be applied to men in the same fashion, not in the US anyway. A woman lies about being on contraception, or pokes a hole in a condom, or even purposefully impregnates herself with semen collected from a condom -- all of which have been actual cases in the US -- and the man is on the hook for child support. Her fraud doesn't matter, because it is the child that has a right to support, not the mother, and the child did not have a say in being born.

I am not sure how that can be considered rape, though, since she consented to the penetration. Did the judge find that any penetration after the ejaculation was rape because she gave conditional consent? That's splitting a hair, methinks.

What if a guy consents to sex, only if she agrees to let him come inside her, and then she reneges on that promise?

Silly decision.

It's not rape. The guy is a douche, but this is a matter between the two of them. It's not criminal.

[Coito ergo sum]

But in current law, promising to withdraw and actually getting the girl preggers is lagally a rape, as it voids any consent the lady may have given.

That's bogus, because she either consented or she didn't. The consent is to the cock being inserted. I don't see as how you can backdate a nonconsent after consent has been given. Consent by fraud can be obtained a million different ways --

She could consent conditioned on his representation that he was infertile. If he isn't infertile, is it now rape?

What if the sexes are reversed, and woman says she had her tubes tied, but she did not. Did she rape him? Of course not.

Fucking nonsense. Women ought not be treated like children. If a guy says "I'm a rich millionaire and love you more than anything else in the world and I'll marry you and take care of you forever" and he's lying, it doesn't vitiate consent. She either agrees to the cock or she doesn't.

[mistermack]

I would class getting married under sharia law as rape.
If you perform such a big deception, for the purposes of sex, as convincing a woman that you are married when you are not, then that's rape as far as I'm concerned.

And whoever married them should get done for aiding and abetting rape. That might put a stop to it.

[MrJonno]

I would class getting married under sharia law as rape.
If you perform such a big deception, for the purposes of sex, as convincing a woman that you are married when you are not, then that's rape as far as I'm concerned.

And whoever married them should get done for aiding and abetting rape. That might put a stop to it.

Sharia law just means co-inhabiting in a serious relationship, courts/judges do take the background of a relationship into account when determining guilt. As far as the law is concerned its meant they have a religious blessing and shacked up together, the woman doesn't have any rights on property due to it. Basically they are not married

[mistermack]

Sharia law just means co-inhabiting in a serious relationship, courts/judges do take the background of a relationship into account when determining guilt. As far as the law is concerned its meant they have a religious blessing and shacked up together, the woman doesn't have any rights on property due to it. Basically they are not married

Exactly. So convincing someone that they ARE getting married, should be a crime.

[MrJonno]

Sharia law just means co-inhabiting in a serious relationship, courts/judges do take the background of a relationship into account when determining guilt. As far as the law is concerned its meant they have a religious blessing and shacked up together, the woman doesn't have any rights on property due to it. Basically they are not married

Exactly. So convincing someone that they ARE getting married, should be a crime.

Using it for financial advantage would be, but there are no tax breaks for being married in the UK, its possible some financial companies may take into account when you apply for a loan (assuming that's legal). Obviously using it in a divorce case would be fraud

[Rum]

It is worth noting that Islamic so called Sharia Councils have popped up in the UK over the last few decades. Some Muslims go to them in preference to say a solicitor to arbitrate over matters to do with property, marriage and civil type law generally. Some of our more ignorant Islamic citizens (either by choice or educational exclusion in the case of some women) don't know that UK civil law is the official formal law of the land and that Sharia has no basis in established civil law at all here.

[MrJonno]

It is worth noting that Islamic so called Sharia Councils have popped up in the UK over the last few decades. Some Muslims go to them in preference to say a solicitor to arbitrate over matters to do with property, marriage and civil type law generally. Some of our more ignorant Islamic citizens (either by choice or educational exclusion in the case of some women) don't know that UK civil law is the official formal law of the land and that Sharia has no basis in established civil law at all here.

It's an interesting problem as unlike a priest or rabbi, or civil registrar an Iman can't marry anyone in the eyes of British law. What is quite creepy is that I've never heard any Muslim organisation complain about what is blatant discrimination (I would ban all religious wedding and have them all be civil which occurs in many European countries).

I can only assume that these Muslim organisations like the fact that a woman gets very few rights financially if not married under British law and they only have a sharia service

[Svartalf]

But in current law, promising to withdraw and actually getting the girl preggers is lagally a rape, as it voids any consent the lady may have given.

I think the judge ruled the reverse of that.

Which is most weird... the reliability of the method should not trump the destroying of consent

[Pappa]

It is worth noting that Islamic so called Sharia Councils have popped up in the UK over the last few decades. Some Muslims go to them in preference to say a solicitor to arbitrate over matters to do with property, marriage and civil type law generally. Some of our more ignorant Islamic citizens (either by choice or educational exclusion in the case of some women) don't know that UK civil law is the official formal law of the land and that Sharia has no basis in established civil law at all here.

Well, not strictly true. Sharia "courts" have the ability to arbitrate over civil matters, and those choosing to use them are bound by their decisions, as they are in the case of other forms of arbitration.

[Jason]

Truly? The rulings of these Sharia 'courts' will hold weight in a civil court?

If that's so.. it's more than a little disturbing.

[Tyrannical]

Truly? The rulings of these Sharia 'courts' will hold weight in a civil court?

If that's so.. it's more than a little disturbing.

It's called voluntary arbitration, and both parties have to agree to it. Of course people could be coerced into accepting it, and that is the source of some complaints.

[Jason]

Yes, I understand voluntary arbitration. What I'm concerned about is the many aspects in which Sharia 'law' contradicts actual laws. In these instances surely the judgments of the Sharia 'courts' would not be upheld in a civil court.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Truly? The rulings of these Sharia 'courts' will hold weight in a civil court?

If that's so.. it's more than a little disturbing.

It's called voluntary arbitration, and both parties have to agree to it. Of course people could be coerced into accepting it, and that is the source of some complaints.

It is still not legally binding if either party recants later or if it goes against the law of the land - same with jewish beth din courts. In real terms, religious "courts" have no greater powers than those bestowed on any club committee by its members. It is really only the belief of their adherents that gives them power.